As fires continue to devastate Los Angeles County, a president will soon be inaugurated who has promised to withhold federal help from states like California if Democratic lawmakers there don’t sing to his tune. Donald Trump threatened to withhold federal disaster relief from the state just months ago, and he recently repeated that threat. 

There’s plenty of reason to believe Trump means it, too, considering he reportedly delayed or withheld disaster aid to blue states and Puerto Rico during his first term as president.

Republican lawmakers like Rep. Warren Davidson (R-Ohio) have also raised the idea in light of the California wildfires, while House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) said on Monday that he believes federal aid should be conditional. “It appears to us that state and local leaders were derelict in their duty in many respects. So that’s something that has to be factored in,” Johnson said, echoing the larger right-wing response to the fires, which has been to blame Democrats.

Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.) chimed in later on Monday. “They don’t deserve anything, to be honest with you,” he said of the prospect of outside aid coming into California, citing “inner-city woke policies.”

The wildfires in California have burned roughly 40,000 acres of land — or about 62 square miles — which is nearly three times the size of Manhattan. The Santa Ana winds are expected to pick up and increase the risk of fires spreading further. If Trump were to deny a state like California federal aid during such a disaster, the consequences could be enormous.

“It would be unprecedented. The longstanding protocol among presidential administrations has been to leave any kind of electoral politics behind when it comes to any disaster declarations,” says Jesse Keenan, an associate professor and director of the Center on Climate Change and Urbanism at Tulane University. “The impacts would be devastating.”

In response to the Los Angeles fires, President Joe Biden on Jan. 8 approved a Major Disaster declaration that directed government funds to support the region’s recovery and help pay for the cost of fighting the fires. The administration also deployed large air tankers and federal firefighting helicopters operated by the U.S. Forest Service to help fight the fires. 

“There are different faces to federal involvement in disasters,” says Daniel Farber, a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley. “There’s somebody that’s available beforehand to try to reduce risks of various kinds, there’s the immediate disaster response where you see the guys with the FEMA jackets on the ground, and then there’s this longer term rebuilding process, which can take years, and there’s federal aid for reconstruction.”

Beyond helping deal with the disaster initially, the most significant role of the federal government is to help the affected region recover. Keenan says that means helping to pay for debris removal and the repair of critical infrastructure. When necessary, it may also pay to upgrade infrastructure to help prepare for future threats. 

“These are very large upfront costs,” Keenan says. “The federal government, when they deploy this money for debris removal and for individual assistance and all of that money that floods in after a disaster, it really does a lot to stabilize the local economy. Without it — if you remove those federal dollars — you see a real delay in the return of what we call normal, stabilized economic outputs.”

Without that money, Keenan says, it would take these communities a lot longer to recover from a disaster. That might mean another disaster could strike while the recovery from the last one is still ongoing. Federal resources allow a community to recover as quickly as possible and hopefully prepare for the next disaster before it happens.

“You could see damage to the community for years or decades if the federal government sort of boycotted the disaster relief,” Farber adds.

Knowing that the Trump administration may be considering withholding federal aid from blue states in the future, governors and other leaders in these states may want to consider how to prepare for such an occasion. There are some things these lawmakers could do if help is denied, but they will never fully replace the impact of the federal government intervening.

“There is a compact between the states to help each other called EMAC,” Farber says. “That’s been used quite a number of times. That’s a possibility, to make preparations and think about what other states you might want to call on and what you would ask them to do.”

Keenan says he might recommend that blue states start to get financially prepared for disasters in ways they haven’t necessarily needed to in the past. That could involve putting money aside for future disasters and creating lines of credit for municipalities that could be affected.

“I would try to create budget line items where I start putting money away — where I have contingency funds, as well as opening pools for lines of credit for local governments,” Keenan says. “It’s not just the cash. It’s also creating credit facilities, which may mean lending pools, that local governments could borrow against for short-term credit needs.”

Farber says that if the federal government decides to deny aid for purely political reasons, states may want to be prepared to sue the government and see how that plays out in the courts.

“If the president just said ‘no’ without an explanation, then it would be really hard to sue,” Farber says. “If the president said it was because you voted against him, then there’s a chance of it succeeding in court.”

The federal government is typically expected to step in and help a community when it faces a natural disaster, the idea being that we’re all in this together, and we should help each other in times of need, regardless of political affiliation. The Biden administration sent federal help to red states that had been ravaged by hurricanes last year, even while Trump tried to claim he was withholding it for political reasons. 

“In moments like this, it’s time to put politics aside,” Biden said during a visit to Georgia following Hurricane Helene. “It’s not one state versus another — it’s the United States.”

It’s clear Trump doesn’t see it that way. The president-elect is transactional, and he is spiteful, so states may not be able to consistently rely on federal help going forward. However, Trump may find himself in a political bind if he starts threatening to withhold aid due to how the electoral map looks in this country.

“Disproportionately in this country, disaster declarations are made in red counties,” Keenan says. “You can pick on Nevada or California or Virginia or wherever, but it’s not going to be so easy politically,” he adds, noting that Trump could wind up hurting his own supporters by using disaster relief to carry out his political vendettas.

Perhaps, for this reason, he may be hesitant to do so. That being said, Trump has not always been known to let logic get in the way of his actions.

No, California Democrats, you can’t keep the funding tap on full blast when you have shown, year after year, that you can’t properly manage the flow.

House Speaker Mike Johnson is correct in issuing a “no-blank check” warning to the state.

“Obviously, there has been water resource mismanagement, forest management mistakes, all sorts of problems,” Johnson said Monday, acknowledging that any aid package for California may come with conditions. “And it appears to us that state and local leaders were derelict in their duty and in many respects.”

It is crucial for California to ensure that such funds are allocated efficiently and intelligently. Without transparent oversight, there is a significant risk that these funds could be misallocated or disappear without trace.

We must not overlook the lessons from the past; during the COVID-19 crisis, the California Employment Development Department was unable to account for $55 billion in unemployment benefits.

If funds are disbursed hastily without adequate oversight, history could repeat itself.

The California government’s administration of public finances has been under scrutiny for years, such as its high-speed rail project.

Initially proposed to link San Francisco with Los Angeles, the project has dramatically ballooned in cost, with projections now ranging from $89 to $128 billion for a significantly reduced route from Merced to Bakersfield, according to the Institute for Energy Research.

In December 2024, Congressman Kevin Kiley (R-Roseville) introduced legislation that would eliminate federal funding for the California High-Speed Rail Authority, calling the project a failure due to political ineptitude, maintaining that there is no plausible scenario “where the cost to federal or state taxpayers can be justified.”

Addressing the homelessness issue has been equally fraught with challenges. Despite an investment of $24 billion over the last five fiscal years, as documented by the Legislative Analyst’s Office, homelessness has not decreased but rather increased by 3% in 2024, per CalMatters’ analysis.

The root causes, predominantly drug addiction and mental health issues affecting an estimated 200,000 individuals, remain largely unaddressed.

Yet the state’s “Housing First” policy, which prioritizes providing housing with minimal conditions, lacks accountability. It does not sufficiently tackle underlying issues like addiction, especially with the unchecked influx of fentanyl that pours across the border.

Gov. Gavin Newsom’s approach has been rightly criticized for intensifying funding for programs that do not yield proportional outcomes. Given these considerations, it is imperative to press pause before new federal funds are allocated.

California residents, particularly those in Los Angeles who are directly impacted by the fires, are calling for a more strategic, accountable approach to financial management.

California can’t afford to make the same mistakes, year after year.

Erica Sandberg is a freelance journalist and host of the San Francisco Beat.

Ricki Lake, whose treasured Malibu home burned to the ground last week amid the Palisades Fire, shared on social media that three months ago, she had spoken with celebrity medium Tyler Henry, who asserted a home connected to her would be ravaged by fire and water.

“Trying to articulate this without it sounding concerning,” Henry began, bringing up an instance of fire, in an episode from his series, “Live from the Other Side” on Netflix. “I think this may have already happened. If there was a loss [of] material objects from fire and water – and water though – that’s the kind of weird distinction,” he added as Lake nodded affirmatively. “It’s two separate things.”

“So we’re gonna end up finding that there’s a story where, like, there was a house fire, or something along those lines.”

CALIFORNIA WILDFIRES: ESSENTIAL PHONE NUMBERS FOR LOS ANGELES-AREA RESIDENTS AND HOW YOU CAN HELP THEM

“There was a house fire,” Lake said.

“Separate from that,” he continued. “And this might end up being a little bit more pertinent. We had like a really bad storm and our basement flooded and it got a bunch of pictures ruined and we couldn’t ever bring them back. There’s just something about watching water seepage into a place it shouldn’t and damaging things. So keeping both of those things in mind.”

Celebrity medium and TV personality Tyler Henry had a premonition about a home connected to Ricki Lake in an October episode of his Netflix show. (Gary Gershoff/Getty Images)

LOS ANGELES WILDFIRES: ANNA FARIS LOSES PACIFIC PALISADES HOME, MOLLY SIMS WEEPS OVER ‘DEVASTATED’ COMMUNITY

“But the fire already happened?” Lake clarified, sharing that she lived in Malibu. “The fire already happened,” Henry confirmed, acknowledging the fragility of the area. “But the kind of emphasis here is for some reason water. Fire and water. We got to watch it.”

In a post to Instagram, Lake credited Henry for his premonition, saying he’d “called it,” urging people to watch the episode.

“Less than three months ago, on Oct 15th, 2024 Ross and I were on Tyler’s show and guys, he SAW the fire,” she wrote.

Ricki Lake’s Malibu oasis burned in the Palisades Fire. (Ricki Lake Instagram)

LIKE WHAT YOU’RE READING? CLICK HERE FOR MORE ENTERTAINMENT NEWS

Last week, Lake shared photos of her beautiful Malibu property to social media, alerting followers that she had lost her “dream home” in the fires.

“It’s all gone,” she wrote, beneath a series of photos of her home before the fire. “I can’t believe I am typing these words.” Lake said “a valiant and brave effort” was made by their friend to save the home, but they unfortunately did not succeed. “The place where we planned to grow old together. We never took our heavenly spot on the bluff overlooking our beloved malibu for granted, not even for one second. I shared our sunset views almost daily with all of you.”

“This loss is immeasurable. It’s the spot where we got married 3 years ago,” she said, referencing her third marriage to Ross Burningham. “I grief (sic) along with all of those suffering during this apocalyptic event. Praying for all of my neighbors, my friends, my community, the animals, the firefighters and first responders. More to share soon of how we escaped with Dolly and not much else. For now I grieve.”

Ricki Lake shared a video of what’s left of her home over the weekend. (Chris Haston/NBC via Getty Images)

APP USERS CLICK HERE TO VIEW INSTAGRAM

CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP FOR THE ENTERTAINMENT NEWSLETTER

On Sunday, she shared a video showing “What’s left of our home and garden from the courtyard.” She wrote, “The Palm trees survived! I can’t believe it…. And to hear the birds chirping warms my broken heart.”

According to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, there are three active fires burning in Los Angeles: the Palisades Fire (14% contained), the Eaton Fire (33% contained) and Hurst Fire (89% contained.) Over 12,300 structures have been destroyed.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP